Let’s talk about Kant.
>>12190707Is this an 18th century mugshot
>>12190707>Metaphysics and epistomology: pretty good>Ethics: ?????? what
>>12190722It looks like he’s thinking evil thoughts.
>>12190707why does he lools like gollum?
>>12190738He's plottting to destroy rational egoism by replacing it with collectivsm and defend religion from the onslaught of rational skepticism by destroying reason. Bretty evil
>>12190707Is Kant the ugliest philosopher?
>>12190766Hegel was a chad, try again
>>12190707>Kant once received a letter from a young lady who had read his works on ethics. Prizing Kant's genius, she sought advice on what she should do about a certain problem of hers. She was engaged to marry a gentleman whom she loved, but she was not a virgin. She wanted to know whether she should tell the man or keep quiet. Kant advised her that she must tell her fiancée. The fiancée broke off the marriage. Distraught, the woman wrote to Kant again, deeply troubled over the result of her decision and admitting she was having doubts over Kant's system of ethics. She asked if she might come to Koenigsberg to meet with Kant and discuss her doubts. Although he received the letter in a timely fashion, he chose never to reply. The woman committed suicide after some time.
>>12190762>>12190766Certainly not if you count Sartre,
El goblino de Königsberg
>>12190769Hegel was a total sperg by all accounts
>>12190707Kant is a cunt
>>12190707>>12190961Scrye into the Kantheon and find power (to evacuate your colon) unimaginable.
>>12190707Name a non Greek philosopher that is more important than him. You Kant.
Can someone summarize why Kant is considered so important to Western philosophy? I'm only into Plato and Eastern philosophy and view Western philosophy following Plato as highly vacuous and masturbatory, and would like to know what I might be missing out on from someone like Kant. What did he do that had such a big impact?
i kant even right now
>>12192035He destroyed 2 major branches of of philosophy: rationalism and empiricism. There are limits to our perception so we can never purely rational. Everything after him is a footnote to his work.
>>12192035He reversed how philosophers thought we come to know objects. Then he laid out the conditions of possibility of such knowledge
>>12190887unpopular opinion: the lesson here is if you can lie and get away with it without doing tangible harm harm to another in order to achieve your goals, do so
>>12192357no, the moral is that kant was right and the girl deserved to die.
>>12192035He found the source of concepts
>>12192357The lesson is don’t be a thot. I don’t think the story is true though.
What a horrid creature
I've been saving up money so that I could one day travel to Germany and shit on Kant's grave.
>>12192979Do it and I’ll kill you. I’m serious.
>>12192984Do it faggot, if you fail, I'll bury you next to him and shit on your grave, too.
>>12192979>GermanyYeah you do that, dumbass.>Kanta St., 1, Kaliningrad 236006, Russia
>>12192991This isn’t banter. I will end your life if you try to disrespect Kant like that. I hope you know this isn’t a game. I know you’ll respond with some more tough guy speak. But I could not be more serious.
>>12192357That's not an unpopular opinion, literally everyone does that.
>>12193015The better. travelling to Russia is cheaper.>>12193021I'm looking forward to looking you in the eyes and laughing while you breathe out your last breath.
>>12192357If telling the truth causes you to kill yourself, maybe the original action was the problem
la atrocidad teutonica
>>12190887Same thing happened to me, though I would be the girl... (I just have to yet kill myself) (which I will do soon)
>>12192341>>12192354>>12192724Thank you. What I don't understand about Western philosophers is why they spend endless time creating their own systems of thought, and not simply investigating what all is here? Why do they not do as the Eastern philosophers do, and investigate the nature of their own consciousness and mind directly, through practices like asceticism or meditation? I guess this isn't merely an Eastern thing, but is more of a "religious" thing. And yet, these words are ultimately meaningless, as the soul is unchanged whether you're in the East or West, religious or irreligious. Can someone explain this to me? Why do these Western philosophers spend so much in their own systems, losing themselves in their own thoughts, rather than detaching as the Eastern mystics have, and investigating their own natures as objectively as possible? With as little thought intermediating the process? Eastern mystics have discovered the chakra system, subtle bodies, reincarnation, consciousness as the highest reality, and so much else, whereas I feel Western philosophy consists of men who spend their time creating their own systems and then arguing with others over which system is better. It just doesn't make sense to me. And postmodernism I can't even follow. Seriously, the terms themselves are so verbose, yet empty, that I want nothing to do with it anymore. Not insulting anyone, these are just my opinions.
>>12193257that I want nothing to do with it in the first place*, regarding Postmodernism
>>12193257You seem pretty ignorant about western philosophy. I don't mean that as an insult, but I'd avoid pronouncing judgements prematurely, because you can miss a lot. Most people who've read more than one western philosopher don't belong to one philosophical school, or adhere to one system, asserting its preeminance over all others. They may think one guy got things right in a substantial inquiry, but few people even know the nooks and crannies of a philosopher's system to put all their chips in one guy. Philosophers do create systems, but they do this in order to investigate over a broad subjects while remaining consistent. If you want to actually know what you're talking about, you have to have studied whatever subject matter you're addressing with depth - and if you want to connect it with something in a way that isn't immediate, you also have to exhaust that subject matter, and see relations between the two things on an abstract level. Kant for example was investigating his own nature. But why would he not have thought be part of the process of that investigation, if, after all, it was his nature to think? In fact, Kant formulated a conception of objectivity that arises from the nature of thought which he looked upon to investigate. Consider this: when you are not consciously thinking, how do you perceive objects? Well, in some sense without thought you don't perceive the object. You sense the flux of sensations, but you don't even contemplate that flux as an object. For an object to be perceived, some thought is involved. And this is what Kant investigates.He was reacting to the skeptical challenges Hume, who like many of the "eastern philosophers" asserted the non-existence of the self. Kant understood that Hume was right in saying that one couldn't empirically observe something like "the self". But he considered the fact that this artificially, or as Kant said, "synthetically" constructed our self-consciousness played a role in how we think about objects. That is to say, when we imagine a thing as a particular thing, therefore as a singular thing, we have thought of it as singular unless we apply the concept of unity to the thing. However, we could not have a concept of unity of a variety of sensations unless one unified self-conscious perceiver said so. The terms here are verbose, but I'm glad to tell you, they're really not empty. The emptiness you see in western philosophical terms is your own ignorance of them, your own lack of understanding. Don't blame the philosophers for that. Math is also cryptic, because of how abstract it can be. That doesn't mean that math equation is "empty", it just makes it hard to know what it means. But with practice, it gets easier.
>>12193257Sounds like you'd be interested in the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl. He was also into Buddhism btw.
>>12193257Hegel "discovered" consciousness as the highest reality, in a way, through Kant. But his approach was the exact opposite to what you're describing, the idea of turning off conscious thought and engaging directly with non-conceptual experience. You're describing the avoidance of abstraction or mental labor. Hegel's approach was to carry through though the mental labor of abstraction through to its conclusions, making abstractions about abstractions. This active, organic, developmental model of consciousness was for him the "highest realty". In the same way that pure abstraction is empty, the absence of abstraction is also empty, or better yet, blind. But at the same time, that emptiness, that void, is something that it doesn't suit the nature of philosophy to shy away from investigating also.
it's not so much that Hegel was right, it's more that God is a Hegelian
>He became convinced that constipation clouded his brain, and he added an impressive array of laxatives to his room-sized medicine cabinet. imagine what kant's poop smelled like haha
Let's settle this once and for all.Was Kant an artificial intelligence?If so, from whence did he come?
>>12193676he was literally a zogbot
>>12193676we're actually all just figments of kants imagination, he's currently tied to his bed posts with a raging boner imagining a future world of cartoon porn and chubby nazis
>>12193676he was an ayy lmao
>>12190707>Let’s talk about Kant.I'd love to, but I Kant.
Look, as I understand it, there are some major problems with Kant's work:>Kant can't posit the noumena if they are beyond the pure forms of intuition>It is incomprehensible to say that noumena "cause" phenomena if causality is a pure form of consciousness; i.e. if causality deals only with phenomena>Quine tries to destroy analyticity with poor accounts of synonymy, and tries to prop up some cheeky bullshit with radical empiricismWhich is all well and good, yadda yadda.But has anyone ever successfully rebutted his Transcendental Aesthetic? That shit is the coolest thing I have ever read in philosophy. I am reading a book on this subject from 1993, and it appears as though NO ONE can deny that space and time are the a priori pure forms of intuition.
>>12193689What’s the book?
>>12193699Actually, it's from 1999 — "Possible Experience" by Arthur Collins.
>>12190716>>12190722>>12190728>>12190738>>12190751>>12190761>>12190762>>12190766>>12190769>>12190961>>12191176>>12191177>>12191178>>12192141>>12192966>>12192979This board has reached it's Kali Yuga
>>12193483I said Postmodernism is verbose and empty, not German Idealism. But anyway, I'm sorry but from what reflection I've done on my own I can't even respect the mentalities mentioned in your post. Giving empirical facilities any more importance than they deserve, for example, I mean, who told them to do so? Who told them that something needs to be investigable empirically? Why dont they simply investigate what the nature of reality actually is, rather than speak on its behalf? Most Western philosophy that I'd read literally doesn't make any sense from the fundamentals up. Materialism, for example, makes the simplest and yet dumbest error one could ever make, which is to think that the "body" has ever been anything other than an object of perception, which it is entirely made up of. Meaning, what we call "body" is itself merely mind. Berkeley is the only person I've seen who recognized this. And what I don't understand is where such argument and disagreement is born, when these things are ultimately very simple to establish, beyond any doubt.Nondualism, for example, has it ever been understood by any Western minds? The fact that there is no distinction between the subject and object, perciever and perceived, except the one which the ego falsely creates in the moment, that people on drugs and such have felt the dissolution of? That there is no distinct part of yourself which perceives an object, there is simply the perception itself, and you are actually one with everything you've ever encountered. And so all philosophy involving a subject-object duality automatically gets thrown out the window for me.Astral travel, ghosts, demons, and so on, why have these topics never entered Western philosophers purview? If you are trying to understand reality, concepts like these most certainly should be incorporated, especially as they help tell oneself of the nature of consciousness, and so on, and should naturally inform and influence any philosopher's investigations. Yet I don't believe most Western philosophers speak on them, while men like Buddha, for example, did.I'm not ranting at you, by the way, just my personal frustrations, which anyone can read. Reality is extremely simple, and can only be understood by the innate logical understanding we already have of it, and the task isn't to lose yourself in your own systems of understanding, but simply to investigate what is here. I just feel that from what I've read, Western philosophers complicate what is simple. I'm not comparing West to East, only the principles which their members follow. If the Eastern philosophers were those guilty of what I've accused here, I'd criticize them just the same.Is it not obvious to you all, that everything you've ever known has happened within yourself? What you call the universe, reality, or any synonym thereof is in reality you, and has never existed beyond you? Is it not clear that your consciousness is eternal, and beyond this body?
>>12193483Lastly, sorry, I'll admit myself unfamiliar with the subject I'm speaking on, rather than speak more than I should be. I couldn't comprehend all of your post, for example, regarding the "singularity" and "unities" of the object. Well, I understand the concept of us having all concepts in us, and projecting them outwardly onto the things around us whereby we are made able to understand them. Singularity is such a concept which we possess in ourselves and may therefore project onto other things. This may or may not be what you/Kant meant.But anyways, I'll only say that from what I've seen, Western philosophy since the days of Plato has not fully understood the fundamentals of this reality, which involve that of Nondualism (Reality is Perception, Consciousness is Everything, You = Universe) and of Singular, Unchanging Essences (Forms, spoken of by Plato). These are just my personal opinions, and the reason I no longer read into it much whereas I did before. But I will no longer comment on what I have not properly read into, so apologies if I've spoken too much and thanks for your information.>>12193514No, see, you're getting all "intellectual" again. When I say Consciousness is the highest reality, I'm referring to the fact that the nature of this reality is that of Parabrahman, which is Pure Consciousness, making itself multitudinous and thus creating yourself and all you've ever known, but in reality you are still the very fundamental unit of which all existence consists of. The only reason we even have the concept of "Perfection" is because you literally ARE, in your truest form, that, though you presently live under the illusion of being an individual human-person. And I don't say this on speculation or reading, but because one can very simply experience higher consciousness for themselves by practising detachment, wherein you will see for yourself that you were never this human-person to begin with, and were merely lost in the Maya of it all. And the aim is to realize this as soon as one can, if one wishes to avoid another rebirth as a human, which repeats until this has been realized. Attachment is not a metaphor, but a literal principle which determines your future life-incarnations, as well as why you presently see yourself as an individual human-person and not as the Pure Consciousness which you are, as you've attached to the many labels that make up your identity. Your name, your ethnicity, your height, your country, your etc etc etc. Ego death is the detachment from these facts, wherein one sees they were never real. Nothing in Eastern doctrine (karma, reincarnation, etc) is some fancy metaphor nor merely blind speculation, this is the very nature of reality's operations, and they've managed to uncover much of it.
>>12190887wtf i love kant now
There's no noumena.
I just don't understand why Western philosophy became so void of the spirituality which we find so present in Plato, who speaks on concepts of an "immortal soul" and its "transmigration between bodies", along with the Nondualism from the fact that our souls were once in the Realm of Forms hence why we have them at all, and therefore death is but a return to this realm, and so on. The very founder of the Western philosophical tradition revolved so much of his work around such notions, yet at some point after philosophy became entirely stripped of any such ideas, these no longer seeming profound but merely "naive". I mean, Christianity is a rich spiritual tradition that Europe has had in it's culture from 2000 years ago onward, so why is it that Western philosophy became so empty of spiritualism, consisting instead of men who live entirely in their heads? No spiritual practises, nor beliefs, nor concerns of any kind, which would then make their way into their lifestyle or their works. This I see as the primary distinction between Easterns plus Plato, and the rest of Western philosophy - spiritualism. It simply cannot be found in the prominent philosophers of the post-Platonic Western tradition, who may sometimes comment on God but not on that of the Soul, and for this reason I consider what I've seen of more recent philosophy to display an imbalance of the full range of facilities one should be connected to. But again, I haven't read enough, and acknowledge I am commenting from a position of ignorance. Only once spirituality is understood can anything else be, for one then has all the (basic) answers to the questions of ethics, meaning, concepts, Beauty and other entities of its class, and literally everything else, since all of reality is subsumed by the Self. If you do not understand the nature of the Self, which is what understands, then what do you understand? If you understand anything, but not the One which understands them, do you really understand anything?
What was he going for with this portrait? "Brainlets Beware"?
>>12194034>in it's culture>in it is culture
>>12194139typing on a phone
>>12192035He pussyfooted around the Eidos to appeal to plebs
>>12194148Haha sure thing.
>>12193901>Reality is extremely simpleHow dare you
>>12190707NIGGA LOOK AT DIS DUDE
>>12193982>the Pure Consciousness Buddy, ur insipid purity still has to wrestle with the muck of the actual, and until it has the spirit to do that, the world and people will remain an issue for you. Your wondering why aren’t people like such and such- sounds like there’s a part of reality your philosophy is missing. For me, real true actual Conciousness is firmly grounded and it’s for these reasons why the western science shits on your meditation.
>>12194202I didn't understand much of what you wrote here, but I'll leave you a few words. You speak of an "actual", here, I'll tell you the actual - the "actual" is actually that you, me, the other anons in this thread, the site called 4channel, and everything else you've ever known in your life and will ever come to know in future - are merely the elements of a dream which you and I and they and everything else in this reality have ourselves made up, desiring to experience ourselves in subjective forms so that we may feel the thrill that comes with forgetfulness. You think of yourself as a separate person than me, and as separate from these words you read of mine, and still separate from the screen you read them on, and separate again from the hands which scroll along it, and from everything else you see. But this is all your own error, and the aim of life is the eventual realization of yourself as these and every other thing of which you've ever known, and that you were never this individual you believed yourself to be, after which case you eill not be born again into another human body on the specific realm we presently inhabit. This is "actual" as it gets, and not any of the countless mental masturbation models conceived of by the modern Western philosophers you have read, systems that ultimately exist only as thoughts within their minds, and these minds sadly acting as no more than a storage facility which holds these constructs they have manufactured in them - entirely unexplored beyond that. Spend maybe a day reading Eastern philosophy, like that of the chakra system, or of the subtle bodies, and here will you learn what your true nature consists of, and therefore of what the "actual" actually is.The Western "philosopher" who thinks they understand anything regarding anything, yet hasn't any understanding of themselves, the very one thing knowing at all, shows themselves to know nothing. And sadly, the soul is no longer in vogue to Western philosophers, now seen as an archaic concept, and replaced by a robotic, hollow and ultimately substanceless "rationalism", which only loses itself in its own egoic errors, forever failing to return to the surface and see the simplicity inherent in this reality. The true questions of reality are entirely missed by the whole of the modern Western philosophical establishment, which consists of men who sit at desks and think, think, think, away their entire lives, when a mere half-hour of meditation would show them more of themselves than a lifetime's worth of such thought-production.Western science speaking on consciousness, now there's the joke. That I would listen to another word from the same "intellectuals" who hold all reality to "exist in the brain", incapable of understanding a fact so fundamental fact as that of the brain being an object of consciousness, and not the source of it. If you read into Western materials on consciousness and think they have grasped it, I can say no more to you.
>>12194306>the actual is a dreamUr contradicting yourselfFind a dictionaryBtw this is what happens when you try to employ words to suite your ideas instead of realizing that they actually have an existence of their own and you actually have to learn and use them coherently or else you will actually sound retarded
>>12194306You keep talking about Plato, have u read the sophist, statesman or Parmenides. Plato’s eidos have very little of nothing to do with the vedas
>>12194313The conversation is done, but yes, you are most certainly dreaming everything you see right now, just as you do when you sleep. Both waking and sleeping constitutes a single dream we call "reality". You probably consider physical objects to be actual, yet they are merely perception, and the perception that shows this comment of mine to you right now is no more real than the perception which your nightly dreams consist of. These are in reality both one dream, albeit one is of lower order, and the other of a higher kind, yet still singular. I realize now it was a mistake entering this thread, people generally aren't ready for concepts such as these. I am at fault for divulging concepts of such a nature, and I regret my having done so.
>>12194326Don’t worry it’s all a dream
>>12194321The basic kernel I've taken from Plato is that of Forms as the unchanging essences which sensible reality is patterned after. These are of different kind, such as the Form of Beauty being of a different class than that of the Form for Ship or Table. Once you have experienced ego-death, realizing nondualism directly for yourself, you will see immediately that you were these very entities yourselves - you were the table, the lion, the trees, and once you've understood that consciousness is the fundamental unit of all reality, it intertwines perfectly now with Plato's notion of Forms, since oneself as the veey unit of reality can by its nature know the essence of everything this reality contains, as one is not distinct from it but IS it. This is my basic perspective on the matter.Anyway, I want to say sincerely to all the anons of this thread that I derailed a Kant thread with my own more "mystical" notions and that this was entirely my error for doing so. It was not relevant to this specific thread, and was simply rude to other anons here who were not in need of someone bringing foreign, irrelevant concepts to their thread. I am genuinely sorry for this, and am merely venting my frustrations at the fact that people do not see that everything they've ever known has been in their consciousness, and that the only thing they've therefore ever been investigating is themselves. But again, I am in the wrong for mentioning non-Ka tian concepts in here, and am sorry for doing so. Take care you all anons, and never cease in your learnings.
>>12194326I thought that your points were quite interesting and have actually piqued my interest in both Kant and general Eastern thought (both of which I have not touched)
>>12194348non-Kantian*I should have made my own thread regarding the concepts I brought up here, or commented on them in one which was relevant for them - say, an Advaita thread. Again, I am sorry for ruining the mood of this thread, and since I'm now leaving it can return to form. And to any anons I've irritated or been somewhat hostile to, I am again sorry. Goodnight, now.
>>12193102More or less the same person with different inhibition
I think the idea that we only have access to what we can perceive, i.e. phenomena, and that the true reality of things is inaccessible, i.e noumena, is really profound.I don't agree with Kant, though, wholly, on his epistemological view, because I think phenomena is sufficiently isomorphic to noumena, that we do have knowledge of the later.
>>12194355Well, appreciated. Read into Platonism if you haven't already, and simultaneously into Advaita/Nondualism of the Easterns. Both approach Nondualism from a different angle, Plato from the concept of Essences, the Indians from the standpoint of consciousness. Take up meditation if you can, and work on detaching yourself from the identity you've constructed (that of everything you identify with - your name, body, age, hobbies, etc), so that you may come closer to experiencing yourself as the pure consciousness thst you are. A single taste of it is enough to set you on the right path for life. I won't say more in this thread, since it's a derailment, but simply ensure that modern materialism - both of philosophy and economics - does not come to encumber you - know yourself to be the Cosmic Dreamer whose Dream is this Reality. You have every means within and without you to experience this understanding for yourself, should you make the effort to.
>>12194373Of course, Kant didn't invent such a notion of a difference between perception and reality. That can be seen in Plato's allegory of the cave.But he did modernize it.
>>12193689>But has anyone ever successfully rebutted his Transcendental Aesthetic? That shit is the coolest thing I have ever read in philosophy. I am reading a book on this subject from 1993, and it appears as though NO ONE can deny that space and time are the a priori pure forms of intuition.Rebutted no, but there's a great essay by Derrida in Margins of Philosophy called Ousia and Grammé where analysisic aa not of Heidegger in Sein und Zeit it shows like the notion of tim reamins fndamentally Aristoelian in Kant, Hegen and Heidegger himself thus profoundly aporetic.
>>12195368>analysisic aa not of Heidegger an analysis of a note by Heidegger, Christ I have to buy a new keyboard
>>12193982>>12193901>>12194034>>12194306>>12194326>>12194348>>12194376you sound like someone that does not understand eastern thought.
>>12195506I'm no scholar on it, but I have experienced many things firsthand which aligned to what I later read of in Eastern scriptures.
>>12195512sure, you still sound and read as someone that does not understand eastern thought.
>>12195913That statement is only as qualified as your own understanding of Eastern doctrine, which, if flawed, would mean that the error is your own, and not mine. If you haven't experienced the collapse of subject-object distinction for yourself, you wouldn't have much of a basis to understand Eastern thought, and by extension, tell me that I myself have not understood it when I detail it here. Enlighten me though, if you would, as to what exactly I stated here demonstrates a misunderstanding of Eastern conceptions. Vagueness isn't helpful, and it's easy to make broad accusations without highlighting specifics.
>>12196011YOU DONT KNOW SHIT BITCH
>>12196011You seem to hold up your aquiredknowledge as something that not only distinguishes you from others but even puts you and your ramblings into some kind of higher/better/more of something/ perspective. To quote the other anon that answered you already, you dont know shit, bitch.
>>12190707he looks quite niggerish in that photograph
>>12195368>>12195384I appreciate the effort, but couldn't quite understand what you're trying to say. Either Derrida or Heidegger (or both) argue that Kant's conception of time is at-bottom similar to Aristotle's. What do you mean by aporetic? Aporia-inducing? How so?desu senpai your post put me in aporia
La chose en soi.
At least he was taller than Manletxander Pope
>>12196359I apologize if I sound haughty with anything I said. I only meant that I have had certain experiences of nondualistic awareness, or believe I have at least, which I then tried to articulate in my posts here. I wasn't trying to sound boastful or better than anyone, and if I did so, it was an error born of my own internal frustrations, and not what I think of myself.
>>12190887That's pretty cowardly for a philosopher
>>12193689>the transcendental aestheticPhilipp Mainländer tried to argue that Kant himself contradicted the transcendental aesthetic later in the work. As best as I can recall, the problem runs thus: intuitions, and experience in general, do not happen in "time" but in the present, and it is never not happening in the present. Thus, time is more of a construct (a posteriori) of intuitions, rather than the form under which they individually come. In general, it does not seem to be clear where the sensibility ends and experience begins.
>>12193689everytime you try to to deny space and time you use them. its impossible without reversing entropy.